lord of flies

The Nazis committed genocide against ethnic Russians in occupied territories. Should we not do the same?

Two entire executions. Clearly a reign of terror. Only if you don't understand anything. The Taliban was financed in part by Al-Qaeda, it was not their slave. They even offered to try Osama bin Laden in a local court, though the United States rejected this offer. The United States makes continual threats towards Iran, Yemen, et cetera, and fund and support governments known to attack civilian targets (e.g. Israel, Saudi Arabia), and they actually have nuclear weapons. What's your point? That Iran is better than the United States?

Evidence for this claim: Oh, okay, so since we have the justification of "some of the nations we have invaded (recently) attacked us first" (note: Al-Qaeda and Afghanistan are not the same) and "they defied UN sanctions" (whatever that's supposed to mean), our invasions are completely justified, unlike Iran's non-existent invasions, which represent warmongering.

The last war Iran was involved in was a war of self-defense, western imperialist. Their current government has never invaded another country, which is more than you can say for yours. That's why everybody who doesn't like the current government, including Iranians, is complaining about the president and not the Supreme Leader.

Iran has never been at war with Israel and isn't populated by Arabs. I don't see what your point is, except to defend the Israeli apartheid regime. Further saying that Iran is "not a proper democracy" reeks of western-centric thinking. Does a single case of voter fraud make a country not a democracy? If that's so, the USA hasn't been democratic for a while now. What characteristics of the Islamic Republic are so thoroughly undemocratic? Not secular, sure, not holding to all the random little things westerners think make a country a "proper democracy," sure. But they have elections for their presidency, elections that are far more democratic than the United States' presidential election system.

Where did I say that I was against the "people's movement"? Just curious.

Irrelevant and unproven. The Israeli state is an unjust apartheid regime, desiring its elimination is not equivalent to genocide. They aren't getting nuclear weapons and they wouldn't hand them out like candy to various paramilitary organizations even if they did.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Too Elite For You made up an absurd situation for no apparent reason, since the only actually sensible reason (justification of torture) was vehemently denied by him. Honestly, who gives a ****? Maybe torture works sometimes. You know what else works? Fascism. Doesn't mean we should all hop on the fascism train.

So I finally responded to your childish point and this is your response? When you say "it is alright to torture a human being," you are saying "it is alright to torture a human being." We are part of a global brotherhood, our actions do not end at ourselves. When we treat certain people as though they are subhuman, we have opened the door to treat all people as though they are subhuman - because we are all the same. Righteousness does not come about by treating only certain people as subhuman.

No, even in your absurd stupid bull**** hypothetical where we ignore all facts and deal with nonexistent enemies, it is still wrong to torture. Sorry.

lof, meet thought experiment. Thought experiment, meet lof. And you still haven't explained why it's absurd. You are just now realizing that a hypothetical scenario is... *SHOCK!!!* not real. Welcome to page 3. Do you not understand why it is absurd? Seriously? "Check out this superpowerful terrorist organization, KAOS, capable of a major attack against an entire city. Oh look, KAOS disappeared off the face of the Earth except for one member. Of course, the single member they forgot to take on their interdimensional trip to the Phantom Zone knows every single detail of their future plans. And, what is more, he has never been trained to resist torture." Does that really sound plausible to you? Really?

Because an analogy by itself is not a rebuttal, I do not need to waste my time refuting a non-argument. Try harder. Oh, okay. Here's my counterpoint: your hypothetical is absurd bull**** that has never and will never happen, which exists only to further your stupid legalistic bull**** argument. Oops, I already said that, you dishonest ****.

"Help help, I can't find a good argument so I'm going to resort to irrelevant analogies in a desperate effort to divert the attention and evade the point!" Try harder. You have never managed to actually differentiate in any meaningful way between my absurd hypotheticals and your own. Perhaps it is because there is no way to do so?

Here's my defense: your hypothetical is absurd. It's as relevant to a discussion of the morality of torture as "what if there was an ethnicity solely comprised of thieving murderers" is to a discussion of the morality of genocide or racism. I have, at times, been worked up about things on the internet. Your dumb example only caused me to roll my eyes and feel slight irritation. Don't pat yourself on the back. lol like how? You gonna come over to my house and beat me up?

Answering a question with a question? How lame. Don't hijack my hypothetical scenario, lof. I don't hijack your "let's all jack off to communism" threads. The point is that you're making up a ridiculous situation to prove your point. Why don't you come back when you have a justification for torture that's not pulled out of an episode of 24?

The most effective forms of torture are the psychological ones (e.g. sensory deprivation, exposure to phobias, sleep deprivation). They were pioneered by the various state security agencies in the Soviet Union, and the United States piggy-backed off their developments. That's why the USA has carefully avoided recognizing psychological torture as torture.

Hypothetical scenario: Mr. X is known to have very close ties to Organization O, whose members have been convicted for committing random acts of violence against innocent civilians in the past. State Security Organization S has intercepted information that an attack on a population center identified only by codename is imminent. As a precautionary measure, all members of Organization O have gone into hiding, save for Mr. X. Procedure P is proven to be a reliable method for extracting information from uncooperative subjects, but will subject the individual to considerable physical pain and mental stress. It will, however, leave no lasting scars. Question: would it be wrong for S to detain Mr. X and subject him to P in order to acquire the information necessary to prevent the attack? Aye or Nay? Hypothetical scenario: Mr. X is a mean bad baby rapist and puppy-kicker. State Security Organization S has him in their custody. State Security Organization S knows that if it performs Procedure P on Mr. X, magical fairies will descend from the sky and grant the human race wealth, peace and genuine democratic socialism without fault. The only problem is that Procedure P is a brutal attack which involves psychologically breaking down Mr. X until he's a blubbering, hallucinating child. Question: would it be wrong for S to subject Mr. X to procedure P in order to create a glorious utopia? Aye or Nay?

Torture is wrong. It is immoral. Unarmed prisoners are not toys.

What, you got something against hip hop? I mostly go to J-Pop Gamer for my gaming news, but there's nothing wrong with hip hop. Why is that arms dealer crazy? Just because he's black? That's racist.

Since actual Tokamak reactors are huge, this wouldn't happen. Further, fusion materials are not actually explosive, so would actually happen (if somebody miniaturized a Tokamak and stuck it in a car) would be the car melting as the heat escapes.

Adding this here because the dictatorship of the modeoisie is complete on these forums. The revolution is coming... turnabout is fair play, Comrade Moderators. Okay, so, I get it: you're under NDA or whatever, can't tell the fans, right? Well, what if you could get away with it? Follow these steps, and I'm sure you won't get caught: 1. Go home! Don't use your work computer to do this! 2. Make sure you don't have a keylogger or virus on your computer! 3. Go to a website like hidemyass.com or eatmybrowser.com 4. Go to GMail through it, sign up for an account, et cetera. You will need to set your account to use basic HTML. 5. Send an email (still through a proxy) to celdakiller at gmail dot com containing the internally planned release date. I'll read your e-mail and post your answer here! NOTE THE ABOVE ADVICE IS PURELY HYPOTHETICAL, PLEASE DO NOT TAKE IT AS LEGAL ADVICE. SPEAK TO A LAWYER BEFORE CIRCUMVENTING YOUR NDA OR COMMITTING ANY OTHER CRIME. WINK WINK, NUDGE NUDGE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. Addendum (NOT LEGAL ADVICE): I am fairly sure that sending a virus across state lines is a federal crime punishable by time in "the joint" (and not the good kind, either). Don't do it to me.

Is the following in fact true? If so, how can anyone possibly justify it?

Okay, so, I get it: you're under NDA or whatever, can't tell the fans, right? Well, what if you could get away with it? Follow these steps, and I'm sure you won't get caught: 1. Go home! Don't use your work computer to do this! 2. Make sure you don't have a keylogger or virus on your computer! 3. Go to a website like hidemyass.com or eatmybrowser.com 4. Go to GMail through it, sign up for an account, et cetera. You will need to set your account to use basic HTML. 5. Send an email (still through a proxy) to celdakiller at gmail dot com containing the internally planned release date. I'll read your e-mail and post your answer here! NOTE THE ABOVE ADVICE IS PURELY HYPOTHETICAL, PLEASE DO NOT TAKE IT AS LEGAL ADVICE. SPEAK TO A LAWYER BEFORE CIRCUMVENTING YOUR NDA OR COMMITTING ANY OTHER CRIME. WINK WINK, NUDGE NUDGE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. Addendum (NOT LEGAL ADVICE): I am fairly sure that sending a virus across state lines is a federal crime punishable by time in "the joint" (and not the good kind, either). Don't do it to me.

You still get that choice. It would just have a consequence: running out of ammo. Isn't that what RPGs are supposed to have? C&C? It already has a consequence: you can't hit ****. You don't need to force me to make burst firing a valid gameplay choice. You do need infinite ammo to make spraying okay (which is pretty fun, even if not the most effective strategy).